Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Wellin]

1 hour ago, capt_oats said:

Do I trust the Exec Board? Frankly, no. I don't.

At this moment in time I don't trust them to make Good Decisions as, for whatever reason, we've seen them consistently make Bad Decisions for the past 2 years or so.

This is a board who "forgot" to announce that the First Team Manager had triggered a year extension to his contract and had to finally clarify this via public apology. It's a board who took a full calendar year to appoint a permanent CEO after Alan Burrows gave notice.

We don't need to re-litigate every Bad Decision but the long and the short of it is that this is objectively a Bad Deal that impacts in a way that is absolutely fucking miles from the "fundraising initiative" McMahon spoke about originally - and the Executive Board are apparently recommending it?

As @David1979 says above our Executive Board is hugely at fault here and tbqh I fully agree that they owe Mr. Barmack an apology because the way that they've carried themselves has been nothing short of embarrassing not to say completely disrespectful of the Well Society and the support who contribute to that.

If nothing else the shambles that has ensued post-Burrows has clarified who was actually running the club through the period of relative success that we've had as a fan-owned club that they've been taking credit for.

I think personally the first thing that should be done is that the Executive Board members who voted for this deal let fans know their reasoning behind it. 

I'd like to hear from the well society board as well - how it actually came to the point where members who are on the board to represent the well society voted yes when other members were opposed. 

[Ron Aldo]

The more I read about this offer the more off putting it becomes. 

In saying that, I don't think that Erik comes across as a bad guy and it's respectable that he's tried to answer a lot of the questions put to him on here. But that's just the issue - trying to answer and being able to answer are 2 very different things in this scenario and there's just too much "we'll see what happens" about this offer (that's without even considering how crap the offer is). 

As others have said, the board are selling the club down the river here. Had Burrows etc. still been about we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The only thing that confuses me is what the likes of Mcmahon etc. have to gain out of this. Clearly they no longer want to be involved so just go and leave running the club to the WS? 

Anyway, when's the big Serbian boy being announced? 

[Swello]

2 hours ago, TheMighty said:

Whilst I don’t think this is a great deal currently neither do I think the Board (i.e. Jim McMahon) are doing anything other than what they think is right, or potentially right, for Motherwell FC. I don’t think there is a big conspiracy. A value in the deal has been identified and hope this week’s statement clarifies what this is considered to be. 

I don't think there is any sort of conspiracy (or else, it's a *really* shite, obvious conspiracy) - but given the clear implications of the deal purely as it was presented to us by the club last week, I think you can make a simple evidence-based case that the exec board are supportive of ending WS majority (and therefore "fan") ownership.

I think that's the headline of this entire saga - not a modest investment proposal with very few upsides.

[TheMighty]

12 minutes ago, Swello said:

I don't think there is any sort of conspiracy (or else, it's a *really* shite, obvious conspiracy) - but given the clear implications of the deal purely as it was presented to us by the club last week, I think you can make a simple evidence-based case that the exec board are supportive of ending WS majority (and therefore "fan") ownership.

I think that's the headline of this entire saga - not a modest investment proposal with very few upsides.

Perhaps the view, as you suggest, held in the Boardroom is that WS ownership won’t be enough to keep us where we are or take us forward (what that means is another debate). I think that is a legitimate viewpoint. I’d also like to think though that there is a better discussion that can take place between the WS, its members, and the Board on this. Transparency and objective debate so eventually we progress in whatever direction as a collective. Maybe as others have said that will be at least one good that comes out of this.

Personally I’d like to think there can be a partnership that allows this (i.e. maintaining current competitiveness as an absolute minimum) with WS majority ownership still in place.

In short I think you might be right. 

Also I wonder if the valuation is impacted by the view of the WS. If your perspective is that WS control is a negative (for want of a better description) does that lead you to a lower valuation or at least accepting a lower value? 
 

Definitely would be much more exciting to be talking about signings of mercurial Serbians. Even an Non-League Englishman would be grateful relief.

[Vietnam91]

21 hours ago, Erik Barmack said:

On the specifics of club ownership, I cannot provide assurances that are specific because we've never attempted to invest in a club before.

Gonna call you out on that. You told me you already attempted to invest in an Italian lower division team. Cesena if my memory serves me correct.

23 hours ago, Erik Barmack said:

We do think that the Club should be fan-owned, and understand that what we proposed doesn't 100% fit that based, frankly, on the feedback from TWS Board and this message board

This highlights the inconsistencies in Erik's argument. Suggesting the fallout on here has made him reassess his position is patently false. When someone has a 24hr delete set on their WhatsApp you protect yourself. So he's a few of Erik's takes over the past few months:

On the subject of Board makeup, look how control is at the heart of this conversation:

On the running of the club, Jim McMahon is not gonna like that:

 

Looking forward to "Fancy Hollywood types":

On the subject of WS income, archaic and hard to manage is convenient when you are trying to gut the other party:

Conveyed in mid June when things go south:

23 hours ago, Erik Barmack said:

We do think that the Club should be fan-owned, and understand that what we proposed doesn't 100% fit that based, frankly, on the feedback from TWS Board and this message board

Knowledge in mid March, so why put a head of terms together with WS on 46% and you on 49% when it's "insisted"?:

How his offer would change if there was major differences to our income. As of 2 weeks ago we are looking at an increase of £800k per season not the £500k hypothetical below, so if this follows suit, to stay consistent his offer has to change significantly too:

At least I was given the approval to do stuff like this, also, without him we're goosed by autumn:

On additional Investment:

Then the kicker, blink and you miss it (so not the TWS at all then):

On wanting to get involved the football department and "player trading":

Ketts has his wings clipped:

Motherwell FC brought to you by Jose Cuervo at Salt n' Lime Stadium, Motherwellshire:

Another idea floated was taking a home fixture against the OF to Wembley to maximise a grand day out in London and try and fill the 90,000 stadium. How that is community focused for the 4,000 season ticket holders ..... square that circle.

Erik is a chameleon based on his audience and the way the wind blows.

 

Edited June 16 by Vietnam91

[Wellin]

25 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

Gonna call you out on that. You told me you already attempted to invest in an Italian lower division team. Cesena if my memory serves me correct.

This highlights the inconsistencies in Erik's argument. Suggesting the fallout on here has made him reassess his position is patently false. When someone has a 24hr delete set on their WhatsApp you protect yourself. So he's a few of Erik's takes over the past few months:

On the subject of Board makeup, look how control is at the heart of this conversation:

On the running of the club, Jim McMahon is not gonna like that:

 

Looking forward to "Big Hollywood types":

On the subject of WS income, archaic and hard to manage is convenient when you are trying to gut the other party:

Conveyed in mid June when things go south:

Knowledge in mid March, so why put a head of terms together with WS on 46% and you on 49% when it's "insisted"?:

How his offer would change if there was major differences to our income. As of 2 weeks ago we are looking at an increase of £800k per season not the £500k hypothetical below, so if this follows suit, to stay consistent his offer has to change significantly too:

At least I was given the approval to do stuff like this, also, without him we're goosed by autumn:

On additional Investment:

Then the kicker, blink and you miss it (so not the TWS at all then):

On wanting to get involved the football department and "player trading":

Ketts has his wings clipped:

Motherwell FC brought to you by Jose Cuervo at Salt n' Lime Stadium, Motherwellshire:

Another idea floated was taking a home fixture against the OF to Wembley to maximise a grand day out in London and try and fill the 90,000 stadium. How that is community focused for the 4,000 season ticket holders ..... square that circle.

Erik is a chameleon based on his audience and the way the wind blows.

 

I've no interest in reading other people's private what's apps. If it wasn't sent to me directly then it's got nothing to do with me - and I'd say that no matter who this was about.

I basically just want to vote based on the offer we were presented with -and that's it. 

Edited June 16 by Wellin

[Swello]

31 minutes ago, TheMighty said:

Also I wonder if the valuation is impacted by the view of the WS. If your perspective is that WS control is a negative (for want of a better description) does that lead you to a lower valuation or at least accepting a lower value? 

From inference, I'm pretty sure that at least some on the Exec Board view the WS as a bit of a mill-stone - I don't think it's new or controversial to say that.

Ending fan ownership and running things more conventionally so that we can get outside investment is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint (even if it's one I strongly disagree with). Point is - if you (not you personally )want to do that, make the case openly and win that argument but don't do it as part of a weird deal and fail to explicitly mention it in your press release.

[Wellin]

1 minute ago, Swello said:

From inference, I'm pretty sure that at least some on the Exec Board view the WS as a bit of a mill-stone - I don't think it's new or controversial to say that.

 

Ending fan ownership and running things more conventionally so that we can get outside investment is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint (even if it's one I strongly disagree with). Point is - if you (not you personally )want to do that, make the case openly and win that argument but don't do it as part of a weird deal and fail to explicitly mention it in your press release.

Well yeah. The communication from the club in all aspects of this has been poor. Beyond poor. 

[camer0n_mcd]

19 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

Gonna call you out on that. You told me you already attempted to invest in an Italian lower division team. Cesena if my memory serves me correct.

This highlights the inconsistencies in Erik's argument. Suggesting the fallout on here has made him reassess his position is patently false. When someone has a 24hr delete set on their WhatsApp you protect yourself. So he's a few of Erik's takes over the past few months:

On the subject of Board makeup, look how control is at the heart of this conversation:

On the running of the club, Jim McMahon is not gonna like that:

 

Looking forward to "Big Hollywood types":

On the subject of WS income, archaic and hard to manage is convenient when you are trying to gut the other party:

Conveyed in mid June when things go south:

Knowledge in mid March, so why put a head of terms together with WS on 46% and you on 49% when it's "insisted"?:

How his offer would change if there was major differences to our income. As of 2 weeks ago we are looking at an increase of £800k per season not the £500k hypothetical below, so if this follows suit, to stay consistent his offer has to change significantly too:

At least I was given the approval to do stuff like this, also, without him we're goosed by autumn:

On additional Investment:

Then the kicker, blink and you miss it (so not the TWS at all then):

On wanting to get involved the football department and "player trading":

Ketts has his wings clipped:

Motherwell FC brought to you by Jose Cuervo at Salt n' Lime Stadium, Motherwellshire:

Another idea floated was taking a home fixture against the OF to Wembley to maximise a grand day out in London and try and fill the 90,000 stadium. How that is community focused for the 4,000 season ticket holders ..... square that circle.

Erik is a chameleon based on his audience and the way the wind blows.

 

I'm well aware this is an incredibly serious matter that concerns the future of the football club but I had to stop half way through that to laugh at how batshit crazy this all is .

[CoF]

 

 

 

[Ranaldo Bairn]

I have no comment to make on the offer or whether it is accepted or not (that's you guys' business), but magnificent reading on this thread, serious issues being debated sensibly and thoroughly.

You will probably not be aware of the "coffee magnate" who tried to take over FFC a couple of years ago. His offer was recommended to be accepted... and then people started looking into it and him very closely. Fan ownership proceeded after the infamous "statement/question-gate" and while we have serious challenges, mostly due to being, ahem, in the doldrums in a sporting sense recently, our new Board have been largely magnificent.

Tread with extreme caution, that's all I would say.

[Cedrics Mighty Well Army]

Other clubs have organised a "Golden Share" which cannot be sold thereby preventing any one individual or company taking complete control. (In other words, they can't dissolve the Club because they don't own that share.)

Perhaps something similar could be put in place in dealings with EB - a sort of security about what the WS cannot lose whatever transpires down the line?

[Vietnam91]

46 minutes ago, Wellin said:

I basically just want to vote based on the offer we were presented with -and that's it. 

Pretty sure that's the argument put by many Newcastle United fans to overlook the all the other "stuff".

If you wish to progress and not arm yourself with as much context as possible surrounding the future of our club because you have an issue with where it comes from and who posted it then that is your choice. Maybe if Erik's messages were sent to an official WS account maybe it would make you sit up and take notice. Thing is, his views, plans and aims don't change.

With a house being the major purchase any of us will make, you'd not be inclined to trust the glossy pictures in the Slater Hogg schedule. You'd do a viewing, see how the sun affects the back garden, look at the neighbours (is there 2 scrap cars up on jacks and an overgrown garden either side of you?), check the street and surrounding area, see if the practicalities fit your lifestyle. Maybe take a drive by at different times of the day. You know, add as much context as possible, not just shown in what you are presented by the estate agent.

Erik is effectively asking us to buy into his vision off plan as a new house builder, which needs a hell of a lot of trust. His offer, actions and justifications along with the inconsistencies I've tried to highlight does not merit nor deserve that level of trust to be reciprocated IMO.

This and combined with the behaviour of the club board, this really has turned into a dumpster fire unfolding in front of us.

[Well Fan]

When the curtain is pulled back revealing your slightly soiled undercrackers. 

[David1979]

Those WhatsApp exchanges are simply incredible. 

The notion of Stuart Kettlewell showing up to training on a random Tuesday next season with Stevie Frail to find two new Latin American players sitting in the cafeteria, each cradling a lukewarm tea from the machine and poking suspiciously at some traditional Scottish fare is amazing. 

"Who are these guys?" 

"Erik signed them last night. They're here to represent a tequila brand from the US run by one of Erik's chums. We've to make sure they see no less than 20 minutes per game, for at least 2 out of every 4 games. That's the deal we struck with the company."

Jesus Christ! 

And the idea of playing a "home" Old Firm game at Wembley Stadium? Even if that was attempted, the logistics of it are insane. Would Celtic or Rangers even agree to this? Would the league itself allow it to happen? How would we get our fans down to the stadium? Who are the other 86,000 fans we'd need to fill the stadium?

I’m guessing this can be filed under one of the "bad ideas" that Erik admits to having.

On a more serious note, I wonder if the executive board at our club knew about these proposals? That the new investor who wants to become Chairman sees it as part of his remit to go over the manager's head when it comes to signings? Did our new CEO know about this? Did he vote in favour of this deal?

I return to my message from a while ago. We need to not only reject this offer, but we need to begin the serious task of completely rewiring this club on the governance front from top to bottom.

[MP_MFC]

The thread going full Covid Inquiry is not the turn I expected today

[welldaft]

Certainly quite enlightening and insightful some of the posts above…..

Must be very rare for a support to get an in depth analysis / review of discussions leading up to the formulation of a proposal to take over their club. One benefit of fan ownership right there. 

My take like many is the Board have acted hastily in recommending what on the face of it is a poor offer. One wonders if their views may have changed not just based on the fans reaction but the exchanges and information highlighted here.

Will be interesting to see the statement the club release early this week as planned. Might take my mind away from worrying about watching Scotland play football in Cologne this midweek

[David1979]

Can we get a new Motherwell thread for the upcoming season and have this one locked and saved forever? We can't allow the past few month's worth of pages to simply fade away into oblivion. 

This surely has to be one of those chapters in Scottish football that rank alongside Giovanni Di Stefano buying Dundee and wanting to sign Edgar Davids. 

@Erik Barmack you'll forever be remembered I reckon! 

[Dosser1886]

Think if this guy said "can't be arsed with this shit I'm outta here" I would have more respect for him.

Still no idea why he would put as much effort in and engage so much without there being something massively in it for him to the detriment of the club and fans.

I'm out.

[Vietnam91]

Back to a dry post. Still loads of juicy soap opera stuff if you want it but time to be sensible again before the club outlines their thinking tomorrow.

The catalyst for where we are is a poor performing season which results in a hole in our finances off it. That is the issue we were sold at 3 AGM's in a row. They'd have us believe that the new TV deal and to a lesser extend the UEFA uptake was not shared with a potential buyer. Why that wouldn't be the case is crazy and to flip it on its head, if the SPFL had imposed new VAR costs up by £800k a year and known for months, do we really believe that would be shielded from an investor. The investor would have a very good legal claim that information pertinent and detrimental to their investment was withheld.

Regardless, in one fail swoop two weeks ago our bad season financial hole was filled. Gaining advantage is a different issue.

My contention is Erik arrived at negotiations with a percentage stake and amount of money he was willing to pay for that stake. As he has already conveyed, there is no movement on his funding. The chairman, derived a figure of £7.7m that I contend was to make the clubs valuation appear semi-palatable and fair-ish. So the numbers were jerry-rigged in the hope nobody would notice or question.

A fellow poster contacted me by private message and outlined to show a valuation for one year in isolation was strange. He hasn't given me permission to share his name so I won't cite him.

“I am a commercial property valuer but occasionally get involved in more business type valuations where property is involved such as those mentioned in the club statement (I.e pubs/hotels etc).

We would look to analyse at least 3 years accounts (ideally 5 years) to arrive at a Fair Maintainable Profit/EBITDA to which we’d apply a multiplier to arrive at the Market Value. 

I accept the clubs comments that valuations are subjective and there are different methodologies but if only the most recent set of figures was used to arrive at the value then I think that approach is open to scrutiny as a single set of accounts is too open to one off fluctuations (either positive or negative).”

So in the table below, the first row shows what the club has published outlined in the statement below:

“One of the key questions for shareholders is whether the transaction values the club fairly. The amounts being subscribed by the Barmacks – £1.95m – prices the equity in the club at just under £4m – with the addition of the debt of £3.7m (WS and Government) that equates to an Enterprise Value (EV) of £7.7m for the whole club.”

In that text we have 2 parts of the formula, so we can determine from the clubs published numbers, cash available has to be -£100,000.

To be very clear this would suggest £3,685,784 of cash has disappeared or accounted for elsewhere in the interim 12 months.

The rationale given when I asked the club for clarification (for the figure that makes no sense) was the complex way the Covid loan is accounted for and they used up to date accounts and I can only use year old ones.

Thought it prudent to follow the advice and look back over 5 years, 2020 and 2021 are before the tricky covid loan was arranged. It's only in 2024, using the formula the club picked, that Erik gets to buy 50% of Motherwell for £2m.

*IMPORTANT, THESE FIGURES ARE BASED ON THE DERIVED CLUB EQUITY OF £3.9m*

Using EV and needing the club to satisfy that valuation of £7.7m, Erik would have to stump up pretty much double in 2019 and 2020 that he's been countenanced by the board to do now. This is important as the covid loan was not a factor and can't be used as a reason back then. (not that it should be now either).

But the crux here is I would contend that using the last published accounts, finding we have a net suprlus of £104k (gross debt - liquid assets), a stadium and associated land, 2 players worth approximately but not guaranteed or realised of £4m combined, going concern, and all the other trappings of being a premier league team plus a recently announced 15% jump in income then:

1. Our equity should be starting at a minimum of £8m (in reality, an argument could easily be made for £10m conservatively) and,
2. Why are we even here right now?